Unfortunate That In Maharashtra, Two Highest Constitutional Functionaries Don't Trust Each Other: Bombay High Court

"The unfortunate part in Maharashtra is this that two highest Constitutional functionaries do not trust each other. You both please sit together and sort this out between yourselves. Here, the Governor and the Chief Minister, we all think, are not on the same page. But who is suffering in all of this?"

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik was referring to the Governor's inaction on the nomination of 12 members to the Maharashtra Legislative Council over eight months after the High Court's judgement.

The bench observed thus while dismissing two PILs, including one filed by BJP leader Girish Mahajan and directed forfeiture of Rs 10 lakhs he was asked to deposit as a pre-condition. Second petitioner Janak Vyas was directed to forfeit Rs. 2 lakhs.

The PILs challenged certain amendments to the procedure for election of the speaker in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The court lambasted the petitioners before dismissing petitions.

Even as the petitioners tried to argue that the amendments were undemocratic, the court brought up the mistrust between the CM and the Governor.

In August 2021, the Chief Justice's bench disposed of the PIL against the Governor, Bhagat Singh Koshyari's "inaction" in nominating members to Maharashtra's Legislative Council (MLC), despite the 12 names submitted by the Council of Ministers on November 6, 2020.

The court had observed that the governor had a duty to decide on recommendations of council of ministers for MLC member's nomination within a reasonable time.

"We are also a constitutional court. How have we been treated? We had passed an order on the 12 MLCs case. Today we are in March, 2022. Eight months have passed and still nothing has happened," CJ Datta observed.

He added that "At the time, it had been argued that democracy will collapse etc. Has democracy died because the governor hasn't nominated 12 MLCs yet, an issue graver than present? Our democracy is not as brittle. Erase all these differences. Your ramblings do not take the state forward."

Meanwhile, counsels for the petitioners Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Advocate Subhash Jha contended that amendments to the procedure after proposed changes to Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the MLA Rules, for the election of speaker and deputy speaker respectively, are "arbitrary," "illegal" and "unconstitutional".

By the amendment, the "secret ballot" system for election of speaker or deputy speaker of assembly has been replaced with an "open" voting system.

After Nana Patole resigned from the post of Speaker to become the state Congress president, the post fell vacant.

The state government has proposed to hold the elections to the post of the speaker on March 9 and has sought the go-ahead of the Governor in this regard.

Jethmalani contended that as per the amendment, the Chief Minister alone would advise the Governor in an undemocratic way.

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni opposed the PILs on the grounds of maintainability. He said they were a waste of precious judicial time.

The Chief took strong exception to the lack of pleadings in the PIL to demonstrate their locus or how the appointment of the Speaker was a matter of public interest. Additionally, the chief observed that according to the amended rules, the CM's recommendation was only regarding the date for election.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 76